Does Religion do good?

On holiday, I read “A little History of Religion” by Richard Holloway. I was glad I did. The book was a good read and very balanced in its approach. As on so many topics, I learned once again how sparse my own education and knowledge has been. I usually feel good about that, because it means there are so many more interesting things still to learn.

I know don’t why I have suddenly taken to anthologies, but I tried a second one on the same holiday, “Language of the Spirit, a brief introduction to classical music”, by Jan Swafford. This experience was not so rewarding, even though the book contained plenty of unfamiliar information and left the same feeling of awe and curiosity. To my taste, it just wasn’t so well written. Too much of the book became brief biographies of composers, often rather similar, sprinkled with descriptive passages about a couple of their works that used too many of the same adjectives. I’d have preferred more about how music itself evolved. And I have to confess to being rather annoyed by everything before Bach being glossed over in a handful of pages.

The book on religion benefitted greatly by examining many religions, and therefore finding what they all had in common and what led some to have greater success than others. Many themes emerged.

The foundation of all religion concerns two questions that humans have pondered ever since their brains had the capacity to think. The questions are related and are “why are we here?” and “what happens to us after we die?” We are not content with banal answers such as “we just are” and “nothing” so we search for alternatives. Religions usually form when a prophet, someone claiming to receive messages from beyond our everyday comprehension, convinces others of the veracity or importance of something he (usually he) has heard.

Though the author is careful not to judge too harshly, and indeed was an Episcopalian bishop before resigning to take more humanist positions, but put this simple way religion does seem rather silly. The world is full of people claiming special powers, and we usually give them short shrift. Some remarkable things have happened through history, miracles really, though that is not really surprising when we consider how long and deep history has been and how weird things happen to all of us every day.

The next question that comes through when comparing religions is to ask why some stick and others don’t. Here we start to see how religion is interlinked with politics, indeed could almost be seen as the same as politics. To gain any following, the prophet has to have some charisma and a message that fits the moment. Usually, parts of that message are a challenge to established religious and political leaders, so there is a struggle, often violent.

Then, one a religion starts to gain a foothold, organization is key, just as it would be for a new business. Holloway is brilliant and dispassionate about this. In his discussion of Christianity, he writes less about Jesus and more about Paul, whose energy and organizational skills gave the new religion solid roots and a chance to endure. I had not considered this before. Christianity got its structures, rules and marketing message in place, part of which is to establish a power structure that people are prepared to follow. Indeed, Catholicism has generally played the organizational game brilliantly throughout its history, so much so that for hundreds of years the pope was the most powerful political figure on the planet.

It was interesting to read of the similarities and differences between religions. Eastern religions see time as a long series of circles, while Abrahamic ones envision a straight line. Some religions draw strength from being closed, and others from being open and accepting of converts. Most have a set of practices that make sense for any community that wants to sustain, such as honesty and looking out for others. But some, notably the Chinese ones, have how to live this life as the primary focus, while others are more about preparing for what comes after death. Reading about Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism drew me towards the Chinese religions, and I would like to study them more.

The other factor that came through in the book as a repeating feature is how the initial principles of a religion tend to conflict with the organization required to sustain it, or at least with the tendencies of leaders. All three Abrahamic religions started when a prophet railed against the way established religion had departed from its principles. But then each time the principles get relaxed again once the new religion has become settled.

Again, Catholicism is the most glaring example. I sense this tension every time I go to mass and hear the gospel. Two of the most basic themes of Jesus were acceptance of all others and rejection of greed. But our prayers only really focus on other Christians, and the Vatican resides in splendour and its hierarchy usually places veneration of itself above humility. Christ would find plenty of moneychangers in today’s temples.

Historical examples from Catholicism are even more hypocritical. Crusades led to immense suffering. The practice of indulgences led to Luther. The justifications for a pope, celibate priests and a male only priesthood are thin.

It is possible to follow the journey Holloway must have taken from being a bishop to an agnostic. There are two parts, one about faith and the other about benefits.

Faith, which Holloway defines in language including acceptance of uncertainty, is the trump card of religions. Going back to the original two questions, we are inclined to believe something, and we want to be on the right team. There is a great incentive to stick with the team we were born to. Isn’t it amazing how almost all Poles believe Christ to be the son of God, yet Saudi’s credit Mohammed as the true pointer to Allah while Indian’s believe in many Gods and reincarnation? Hardly anyone changes team. Thinking hard about this can only add to doubts that any of the teams really have the answers to the initial questions about where we come from and where we are going.

Then, when we see how humanity continues to contaminate nearly all religions, thinkers might be pulled still further away. What can be the benefit of institutions that move so far from their founding principles and lead to such terrible behaviour?

This leads to the question I have asked myself before, about whether religion has had net benefits or costs to humanity. I see the benefits, in terms of the selfless and humble creeds, the good works (the Catholic Church is the most effective NGO on the planet), on the inspiration for human brilliance and also in the hope it offers people. But the hypocrisy is galling, as is all the destruction and intolerance religion has led to.

But, thanks to Holloway, I now come to a new conclusion. I don’t think the question makes sense any more, because a world without religion is a world without humanity. Religion is just one manifestation of our nature, and is really a dimension of politics. It is just how we are, good and bad, powerful yet powerless. Asking whether religion has been a good thing is like asking whether humanity has been. And, on balance, with all our flaws, we have been – at least for us.

This also helps me with the personal dilemma. I participate more in religion now than I ever have before, and it happens to be the most hypocritical of religions. But I am happy to do so. The rituals, the gospels, the life code all help me and make me a better person, and many of the people I meet through religion are a source of inspiration. That is enough.

Thank you, Richard Holloway. Your book has helped me in many ways.